Internet for hire?

The net cost of net neutrality

The Internet has quickly evolved during the past 20 years from being a luxury to a necessity, with everything from banking to babysitter selection now done with a few clicks. But all that easy access to virtually limitless information could be in for a seismic change as the Federal Communications Commission debates how much it wants to wade into the regulatory waters.

capecodtimes.com

Writer

Posted May. 25, 2014 at 2:05 AM

Posted May. 25, 2014 at 2:05 AM

» Social News

The Internet has quickly evolved during the past 20 years from being a luxury to a necessity, with everything from banking to babysitter selection now done with a few clicks. But all that easy access to virtually limitless information could be in for a seismic change as the Federal Communications Commission debates how much it wants to wade into the regulatory waters.

At issue is the doctrine of net neutrality. Net neutrality essentially ensures that any given Internet service provider, or ISP, cannot block or interfere in any way with the information that is transmitted over its network. Many ISPs, including Verizon, Comcast and AT&T, would like to see net neutrality modified. In fact, these providers, along with the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, have spent in excess of $64 million in 2012 lobbying against it, according to the Sunlight Foundation, which monitors the work of lobbying organizations.

Although it appears unlikely that the FCC will allow ISPs to interfere with the flow of content, federal regulators might allow them to sell faster processing capability to content companies that are willing to pay for it. For example, if the rules were to change, an ISP could begin charging companies that require faster processing, such as movie-streaming services. Although consumers would not necessarily be charged any more by ISPs, the companies that provide content, such as Netflix or Amazon, would undoubtedly look for ways to recoup their new expenses, with consumers likely paying more for content, if not for delivery.

There are also Internet purists who believe that a two-tiered system of online speed fundamentally violates one of the basic principles of the Internet: equality for all. Another argument holds that ISPs could make life more difficult for actual or potential competitors.

Although most of the major ISPs have vowed that they will never block any content, some net neutrality advocates remain skeptical.

Even members of the FCC appear divided on the issue. Of the five commissioners on the panel, the three Democrats approved a plan opening the discussion to public commentary. The remaining commissioners, both Republicans, dissented, saying that the FCC should stay out of this discussion and leave the matter up to Congress to regulate.

Both approaches face potential pitfalls. The majority's gambit would likely make the process more visible, but that does not necessarily mean any fairer. The Republican strategy seems equally fraught with problems; once legislation moves behind closed doors, it could turn into a lobbyist's field day. Members of Congress may have varying degrees of knowledge about how the Internet works, but there are few senators or representatives who fail to grasp the power of cash.

The Internet has well served the business world and individuals during the past few decades. Yes, it has its dark corners and less savory aspects, but it has proven itself as an invaluable tool for progress as well. Any move toward a system where wealthy companies essentially have easier access and control of information seems inherently unfair.

In truth, the system has always been unbalanced. Companies with the wherewithal can ensure that their names appear at the top of any related search through Google, just as certain companies can create comprehensive online marketing campaigns using a combination of email, social media and viral videos.

And yet, many of these developments and innovations came about naturally, as free market capitalism continued to expand and exploit existing freedom on the Internet. In the case of net neutrality, the FCC appears poised to aid and abet the fortunes of some of the largest communication companies in the world, essentially endorsing the creation of first- and second-class accommodations when it comes to Internet traffic.

Rather than fomenting a divided Internet, the FCC should instead be standing by consumers, ensuring that in at least one way, the Internet remains neutral.